Greg Mitchell's Blog, page 39
September 20, 2014
A New Deal for Margarine
Ya think, watching "The Roosevelts," that St. Eleanor was above this? I guess not, as here she is, in my boyhood, flacking for once popular Good Luck Margarine. (h/t Terry Teachout).
Would FDR Have Dropped the Bomb?
The Ken Burns 14-hour marathon wraps up tonight, well worth my time (since I've written several books about 20th century history and politics) despite some amazing oversights, such as only 80 seconds on Japanese internment during World War II.
Tonight, now well into the war, we'd expect a lengthy segment on the Manhattan Project but who knows, it may be treated as a massive footnote. FDR died not long before the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan and too rarely do we hear discussion or debate over the fascinating question of--would Roosevelt have done what Truman did? Or, perhaps, he would stopped after Hiroshima?
Unfortunately, there's not much evidence either way but that shouldn't stop the speculation.
I don't have time to do a full treatment, but let's just say that the most brilliant probing of Truman and his motivation (obvious or hidden) for targeting 150,000 to 200,000 civilians for death in the two cities was found in, ahem, the 1995 book I wrote with Robert Jay Lifton--courtesy mainly of Lifton, I hasten to add--Hiroshima in America. Lifton spent about three pages on FDR and pointed out that Roosevelt, unlike Truman, had sought advice or discussed alternatives to using the bomb, so at least that was on his mind, if only in the back of it. Also, he was far stronger than Truman in power and confidence and would have been far more able to withstand the urgings of aides and generals. Einstein said he didn't think FDR would have used it. McGeorge Bundy and atomic scientist Phil Morrison said they agreed, in talking to Lifton. Most would dispute that.
Read about Leo Szilard's efforts to get Truman to hold off and ask yourself if FDR's White House would have reacted with more interest. And then there's the claim that Truman did not fully understand the civilian toll of using the weapon--would Roosevelt have been more in tune? And see how Truman opened the nuclear era with a lie. Would FDR have done the same--and gone on to speed, rather than halt, the chances for a nuclear arms race?
On the other hand, FDR had a lot invested in the bomb and would have had to defend the enormous resources poured into the project if he did not use it. But he also might have recognized, better than Truman, that Japan was basically defeated and would have likely surrendered in the same time frame due to the Soviets declaring war.
Let the debate continue. I just don't expect Burns to contribute to it.
Tonight, now well into the war, we'd expect a lengthy segment on the Manhattan Project but who knows, it may be treated as a massive footnote. FDR died not long before the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan and too rarely do we hear discussion or debate over the fascinating question of--would Roosevelt have done what Truman did? Or, perhaps, he would stopped after Hiroshima?Unfortunately, there's not much evidence either way but that shouldn't stop the speculation.
I don't have time to do a full treatment, but let's just say that the most brilliant probing of Truman and his motivation (obvious or hidden) for targeting 150,000 to 200,000 civilians for death in the two cities was found in, ahem, the 1995 book I wrote with Robert Jay Lifton--courtesy mainly of Lifton, I hasten to add--Hiroshima in America. Lifton spent about three pages on FDR and pointed out that Roosevelt, unlike Truman, had sought advice or discussed alternatives to using the bomb, so at least that was on his mind, if only in the back of it. Also, he was far stronger than Truman in power and confidence and would have been far more able to withstand the urgings of aides and generals. Einstein said he didn't think FDR would have used it. McGeorge Bundy and atomic scientist Phil Morrison said they agreed, in talking to Lifton. Most would dispute that.
Read about Leo Szilard's efforts to get Truman to hold off and ask yourself if FDR's White House would have reacted with more interest. And then there's the claim that Truman did not fully understand the civilian toll of using the weapon--would Roosevelt have been more in tune? And see how Truman opened the nuclear era with a lie. Would FDR have done the same--and gone on to speed, rather than halt, the chances for a nuclear arms race?
On the other hand, FDR had a lot invested in the bomb and would have had to defend the enormous resources poured into the project if he did not use it. But he also might have recognized, better than Truman, that Japan was basically defeated and would have likely surrendered in the same time frame due to the Soviets declaring war.
Let the debate continue. I just don't expect Burns to contribute to it.
September 19, 2014
Talkin' Woody Guthrie New York Blues
Out of nowhere, we learn via NYT of three-CD set plus paperback book on Woody Guthrie's years in New York with walking tour guide and tunes. Video:
Giving Them the Boots
Great "boots on the ground" in Iraq segment last night.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Colbert Report on Facebook
The Colbert Report
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Colbert Report on Facebook
September 18, 2014
Massacre in Florida
Man, 51, kills daughter, six young grandchildren, and himself. And: "The Orlando Sentinel reported on Thursday that in 2001 Spirit accidentally shot and killed his eight-year-old son Kyle with a high powered rifle in a hunting accident. Florida Department of Corrections records show he was released from jail in 2006 after serving three years for firearms offences." Update: Only new details is that this arose from a "domestic dispute" and that meth (or evidence of meth dealing or making) found at his home.
Brazil Nut
Brazilian soccer player scores cool goal--then disappears in big hole while celebrating.
Moyers Retiring, for Real, in January
Bill Moyers tried to quit earlier this year but we kept pulling him back in. He did cut his public TV show from an hour to half-hour but now he says he's walking away for good in January. I've been on his shows two times in the past decade or so, related to Iraq, and he blurbed my book on the subject, advising folks to read it "twice." He also did an amazing segment on our Beethoven Ninth film last December. Here's hoping our loss will be his gain.
NSA and Israel, One Year On
Just noticed that I wrote this item one year ago today--it's back in the news this week:
NYT's fine public editor Margaret Sullivan hits the paper for failing to cover last week's scoop on NSA passing info on to Israel. Paper says "modest" story and didn't have resources to cover. She points out they didn't even publish an AP or Reuters story. Of course, the Times' coverage and commentary re: Israel long been questioned.
NYT's fine public editor Margaret Sullivan hits the paper for failing to cover last week's scoop on NSA passing info on to Israel. Paper says "modest" story and didn't have resources to cover. She points out they didn't even publish an AP or Reuters story. Of course, the Times' coverage and commentary re: Israel long been questioned.
September 17, 2014
Breaking (Ball) Bad?
Epic Bryan Cranston re-enactment of history of baseball post-season (from Ruth to Fisk to Jeter), a lengthy commercial for TBS coverage this year. Classic. Love the organist--and Pedro cameo.
September 16, 2014
Why They Hate Obama?
NYT can't seem to guess the main reason, duh. Interesting piece just up on how Kentucky has benefited most from Obamacare, perhaps, but voters there still plan to vote Republican in droves. Leads with example of low-paid woman who has all sorts of ailments who was uninsured and now has great Medicaid coverage. But she hates Obama and won't vote Dem. Polls show state 2-1 against Obama but what could there be about him that makes Kentuckians--who he has aided so much--still despise him? Want to guess?
